Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's nice and offers the good, undervalued quality that Mazda is known for. But IMO, it is under powered for an AWD vehicle. 148hp is simply not good enough in the environment I live in and would use the AWD for. My 2007 Mazda 3i had that same horsepower, and it struggled driving through the Rocky Mountains, where an AWD vehicle is highly desirable. I ultimately passed on the CX-3 (for now), and went with the Mazda 3 GT. It's way more sportier, and handles fine in most conditions with its FWD drivetrain. Hopefully, in a few years when my lease is up, the CX-3 will have a beefier engine like the 2.5 liter (184hp, 188 lbs. torque) that is in my 3. Or a turbo 2.0 would be nice...
when you are done reading the reviews you will want one
I second the vote for the CX-5!
Right now the CX-3 is the hot new thing, so dealer's aren't discounting them very much. So the price between the CX-3 and CX-5 is even less than the sticker prices would suggest.
The CX-5 is also noticeably quicker than the CX-3 and the cargo area is almost twice as large. The CX-5 has a 186hp 2.5L vs. a 146hp 2.0L engine, it goes from 0-60mph more than a full second faster and it has tons more room but fuel economy is just 1mph less!
I absolutely love the looks of the new CX-3, but found it WAY too small for me. I have an '04 Mazda3 and it feels positively cavernous in comparison. I also don't like that there is not a center console between the front seats; or arm rests, for that matter. Glaring oversight.
I recently had my car in the dealership for a bearing replacement and they gave me a loaded CX-5 to drive in the mean time. Those clever evildoers. SO nice. If I were in the market to purchase right now, it would be tops on my list.
I absolutely love the looks of the new CX-3, but found it WAY too small for me. I have an '04 Mazda3 and it feels positively cavernous in comparison. I also don't like that there is not a center console between the front seats; or arm rests, for that matter. Glaring oversight.
I recently had my car in the dealership for a bearing replacement and they gave me a loaded CX-5 to drive in the mean time. Those clever evildoers. SO nice. If I were in the market to purchase right now, it would be tops on my list.
I have a 2006 Mazda3 5-door and a 2012 CX-9. I agree that the CX-3 looks good, but the interior is ridiculously small. At some point, a CUV/SUV gets so small that it becomes pointless. I think the CX-3 is there. The CX-5 is so much better all around for only a few thousand dollars more.
The sales numbers show that the CX-3 isn't flying off of dealer lots and it also doesn't appear to be hurting CX-5 sales at all.
2016 YTD (thru 5/31/2016)
CX-3 - 9,402
CX-5 - 51,611 (vs. 43,332 at this point in 2015; so sales are up by 8k units at this point)
Passenger volume is the total interior space available in a car and it is used to determine the size class of the vehicle. It's worth noting that the CX-3 has the same exact amount of interior space as the tiny, godawful Mitsubishi Mirage (86 cu ft) and it is 10 cu ft smaller than your Mazda3.
The CX-3 is based on the Mazda2. It seems small because it is based on a subcompact car. It competes with the Nissan Juke and other small CUVs. It is a weird class of car for me because they seem overpriced for what they are and you don't really gain much utility.
I test drove a CX-5 recently, and while it was a ton of fun to drive and seemed like a good value, it was far too loud inside, and just felt cheaply made. I have a long commute, so I really want something that is as quiet as possible on the inside.
I have a cx3. But it my work car here in the North way I spend a lot of time driving alone around the City for my job. It is nimble, easy to park, great in snow and I am averaging 29.7 MPG in mostly city driving over the last year. It is a mazda which means it will be durable and fun to drive. That said, it is also not good at carrying anybody in rear seat or in carrying much else at all. It is a wonderful commuter car for snowy climes.
Test drove a Mazda CX-3 sport the other day and I really liked it. In the market for a new car and I'm deciding between that, Kia Soul, and Subaru Forester. The mazda was definitely the most fun to drive but didn't have much cargo space. I'm single so that doesn't really matter too much but it's also nice to have. I'm waiting for the crash test ratings to come out for the CX 3 though since safety is a big priority.
Yes! I love the overall look and the design of the CX-3. It reminds me of the Cheetah. I have read some test drives and it does get high marks for the handling and gas mileage. Low marks for the rear seat room and trunk. I think it gets fairly high marks in safety.
That said, it looks great in Red.
I have driven the Kia Soul extensively and it tends to be a little under-powered with a bouncy ride. It does have a short wheelbase. Haven't driven the Forester. I am not sure if the CX-3 has enough go with 146 horsepower?
I wonder if a better choice might not be the Mazda 3 as it has more space and you can get it with 185 horses. More zoom-zoom!!
Yes! I love the overall look and the design of the CX-3. It reminds me of the Cheetah. I have read some test drives and it does get high marks for the handling and gas mileage. Low marks for the rear seat room and trunk. I think it gets fairly high marks in safety.
That said, it looks great in Red.
Mazda's 'Soul Red' is a great looking color on every car they sell!
Quote:
I am not sure if the CX-3 has enough go with 146 horsepower?
I wonder if a better choice might not be the Mazda 3 as it has more space and you can get it with 185 horses. More zoom-zoom!!
Compared to all the other 'subcompact CUVs' (Honda HR-V, Jeep Renegade, Chevy Trax), the CX-3 is quicker in all acceleration tests by a substantial margin. You can get the 184hp 2.5L in the Mazda3 or the CX-5. In the Mazda3, it is a bit quicker than the CX-3 but the weight of the larger CX-5 makes the performance almost identical to the CX-3. As long as it doesn't feel underpowered to you, that's what matters.
For my money, I'd go with the Mazda3 5-door Grand Touring 2.5L (or 's' Grand Touring on the '16). You get a quicker, roomier vehicle with better fuel economy for less money. The sticker price is slightly less on the Mazda3 compared to the CX-3, but the discounts on the Mazda3 are greater than you'll find on the CX-3. So the real-world price difference will be pretty big.
You can get it in SOUL RED, too!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
